Tech Companies and Politicians: Who Pays Who?

fiorenza writes "An investigation into political contributions by technology companies shows that Republicans are the top beneficiaries of such donations, but the Dems aren't too far behind. Perhaps most interesting, it appears that tech companies know that to really get what they want, they need to lobby directly. From the article: 'It's not just Microsoft that is spending these massive amounts. The computer/Internet industry as a whole dropped $84 million on lobbying in 2005 — more even than the TV/movies/music groups. Although the firms at the end of the Internet 'pipes' are spending money, it's dwarfed by the expenditures of those firms that own the 'pipes' themselves.'"

Comments

Democrats already agree, and..

[buswolley]

perhaps they spend more money convincing Republican's because they have more trouble understanding the issues, tubes and all.

Re:Democrats already agree, and..

[MacDork]

Perhaps casual acceptance of blatant bribery won't be so commonplace in the US someday.

Re:Democrats already agree, and..

[bradkittenbrink]

perhaps they spent more money convincing Republicans because the Republicans had majorities.

Re:Democrats already agree, and..

[sonsonete]

Or perhaps they spent slightly more on Republicans because there were a few more Republicans in Congress. We'll have to see if anything changes over the next two years, now that we'll have a few more Democrats.

Net neutrality and campaign contributions

[Salvance]

Ah, the net neutrality battle all over again. It's no surprise that the infrastructure and telecom firms are spending the most money. These are the firms that have the most to lose if Congress begins to support net neutrality and increased competition. Luckily the rise of the internet, message boards (like slashdot), and social networking has allowed Americans to increase their knowledge of the issues addressed by Congress on a daily basis, which allows us to raise our voices and dissent much earlier ... often before poor decisions are made.

Re:Net neutrality and campaign contributions

[Salvance]

OK, you caught me! I am eternally optimistic that technology has and will continue to provide Americans with a greater political voice and presence, along with better political accountability.

Look at the influence of the internet and viral/social media on Howard Dean's campaign (before he made a fool of himself), on the net neutrality debate (where it's now basically dead after popular backlash driven by bloggers and internet petitions), and on corruption (where perverts like Mark Foley would never have been caught had they been operating in a less tech saturated world).

We can poo poo the honesty and integrity of our politicians, but it's difficult to discount the increased importance that the tech savvy, non-elite, individual (or group) now has.

Re:Net neutrality and campaign contributions

[rkcallaghan]

Howard Dean's campaign still failed because as you say he "made a fool of himself". The internet didn't save Howard Dean -- even though the informed internet voter you hope for knew he was yelling over a crowd, unaware of the noise cancelling feature in use on his microphone. No, the only news that really got out was how "crazy" he obviously was.

Mark Foley molested underage children and largely got away with it. This man should be in jail, and so should anyone protecting him. I'm normally never a fan of "think of the children" type responses; and I've seen far too many cases involving offended redneck parents and high school seniors (he's 19, she's 17) to want to brand anyone a child molester without some good evidence of an actual crime. The internet and it being so easy to find out available information hasn't even drummed up a serious investigation.

Instead what I've seen is people like Bev Harris getting ignored, despite years of intense work on something that should be of paramount importance. Other than the circular answer of "because she's right" -- why isn't the internet helping Black Box Voting get heard? Her site is well built and is a legitimate charity; but you'd be hard pressed to find a link to her site anywhere except liberal choir-preaching grounds.

I don't really know of any case where the 'tech savvy non elite' have had an impact.

~Rebecca

perhaps...

[Odiumjunkie]

"Who pays whom"?

Re:perhaps...

[davebarnes]

Exactly my first thought.
Is is so difficult to write proper English (American)? ,dave

2:1 Is Far Behind

[Doc Ruby]

Republicans are the top beneficiaries of such donations, but the Dems aren't too far behind.

just over $4 million to federal candidates in the 2006 election cycle. The money wasn't doled out evenly, though; Republican candidates pulled in 67 percent of it.

Democrats were favored to win the House in that cycle, and most likely to take the Senate, too - reversal of complete control of the government, which in fact did happen. Even so, Republicans still pulled in much more, two to one. That ration is most certainly "far behind".

Democrats need to spend more of their bribes on better PR, even if just so Slashdot doesn't repeat the same "Democrats are just as bad" BS as does the corporate mass media whenever Republicans are much worse.

Re:2:1 Is Far Behind

[evil agent]

Next you will be telling me that the democrats have never stolen an election, lied under oath, or caused the economy to crash.

You didn't know that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil? You must be new here.

Re:2:1 Is Far Behind

[Jonny do good]

Yes, the Republicans are truely evil, I heard it a couple of time here... wait no I meant a couple of thousand times.

Vote Libertarian, the only party that is for our civil liberties and responsible government. Democrats are not for liberties, they tote that line but before Bush who made the most extensive use of the NSA wiretapping program (it was around for the past couple of decades)? You guessed it, Clinton. They want to take guns away, ban video games, ban smoking, ban food aditivies, and ban anything that might possibly hurt/offend someone. Repulbicans want to ban gambling and censor the media. As far as I am concerned both major parties are cronies and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Although I don't tote the Libertarian line I do feel that they are out for our freedom much more than any other party, they just have no name candidates with no money to spend on advertising to get their message across. They are a bit extreem in their views on the governments role (like getting rid of corporate controls), but at least they care about protecting our freedoms.

Re:Lobbying - who is looking out for you?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Kahzakstan is greatest producer of potassium in the world
</BORAT;>

Lobbying is legalized bribery

[schwit1]

1: Every politician's number 1 goal is getting reelected
2: The US political system will remain corrupt as long as the politicians are permitted to take these bribes.
3: The people in power do not want the system fixed because it would reduce their chances at reelection.
4: The system can only be fixed by the people who are in power, since they make the laws.

Campaign contributions should be limited to the 12 months before a primary and only from registered voters from a candidate's district.

And Why Did the RNC Pay Diebold?

[lcreech]

Does anybody know or willing to tell? Without a Grand Jury investegation we may never know the answer. I personally cannot think of a legit or legal reason why they would.

It's going to flip

[Salo2112]

Now that the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate, they will be getting the lion's share of the bribes...oops, PAC money. For those of you too young to remember, the Democrats ran the show for 40 years and were at least as decadent as the Republicans have become, and back in those days, they used to get all of the bribe money.